Tuesday, November 29, 2005

Iraq withdrawal - because of success?

On Wednesday, President Bush will deliver an address at the Naval Academy in Annapolis, MD, in which he is "expected to herald the improved readiness of Iraqi troops, which he has identified as the key condition for pulling out U.S. forces." The speech appears to be an effort by the Bush administration to lay the groundwork for potentially large withdrawals of troops in 2006 and 2007. While Bush recently claimed that withdrawing troops from Iraq was a "recipe for disaster," the White House now appears to have shifted course and is embracing a withdrawal strategy. While Bush and critics of his Iraq policy may agree that a drawdown could be the proper action to take, they differ in one key respect -- the rationale for why such a withdrawal is necessary. Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) recently argued that pulling out of Iraq is necessary because "the war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion." Bush, on the other hand, is trying to suggest that a drawdown is the fruits of "good progress" being made in Iraq. A review of the situation on the ground in Iraq yields the conclusion that things are getting worse, not better.

"Pentagon officials said that in October there were about 100 attacks a day in Iraq compared with 85 to 90 attacks a day in September -- and about half of all attacks involve homemade bombs." That is the highest recorded level of daily attacks since the Iraq war began. By comparison, in January it was reported, "Attacks in Baghdad regularly number in the dozens every day, with nationwide figures hovering around 50 to 70 attacks per day." Also, "more than 225 [foreigners] have been kidnapped since 2004 and at least 38 have been killed." [As of 55 minutes ago, the AP is just reporting on increased kidnappings - DJEB] Ten days ago, a suicide bomber killed nearly 100 people in Baghdad; "the attacks were the deadliest since Sept. 14, when at least 14 insurgent bombings in Baghdad killed more than 160 people."